SHC moved for complete audit of Sindh Bar Council

A petition has been filed in the Sindh High Court, seeking a complete audit of the Sindh Bar Council’s accounts, including its benevolent funds accounts, since January 2015 – the date of constitution of the present council.

Former SBC vice chairman barrister Salahuddin Ahmed submitted in the petition that the SBC had failed to fulfil its statutory functions and responsibilities, while the council was not abiding by its rules.

He said the SBC’s failure did not only affect the petitioner as an advocate but the entire legal fraternity of the province was adversely affected, and it had impaired the general administration of justice in Sindh.

He submitted that for the last many years, no budget had been presented before the full council for its approval or authorisation. “In fact the executive committee and the council staff have been utilising the bar council’s funds as per their own whims and fancies in violation of the rule 30 and 31 of the SBC’s rule book.”

In his capacity as the VC of the SBC, Ahmed said, he had reminded the council’s executive committee of the requirement to present a budgetary proposal for upcoming year.

Ahmed said he had also reminded them of the audit of the accounts and audit report. “Only a signed income and expense statement of account officer was submitted but it lacked the meaningful details of the receipts and expenditure of the council.”

He said the SBC and its committees had breached their statutory duties in relation to presentation and approval of annual and supplementary budgets, the presentation and approval of periodic financial statements and in relation to the auditing of accounts and presentation and approval of audit reports in respect of all council’s accounts, including the benevolent funds.

He alleged that some SBC members were availing travel and daily allowance from the council at exorbitant rates and in violation of the rules and without following a proper procedure.

The petitioner said the SBC was acting in violation of the council’s rule 24 (c) by allowing the SBC council members to hold memberships of more than two SBC committees simultaneously and to let them hold membership of any one of the SBC committees for more than two consecutive years.

Ahmed submitted that excess fee was illegally being charged by the SBC from advocates despite it could only be amended with the approval of the full council and after a gazette notification.

He said that executive and disciplinary committees had passed unlawful orders and struck of advocates from the roll and suspended them indefinitely without even referring their cases to the tribunal and the SBC platform was being used to settle personal and political scores with advocates.

The court was requested to order comprehensive audit of the SBC accounts, including benevolent funds, and direct the SBC officials to run the affairs of the council as per its laws.